Gordon Brown: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the Government's proposal to invite the House to agree further democratic reform, including legislation before the House rises for the summer on the conduct of Members of Parliament.
	The past few months have shown us that the public require, as an urgent imperative, higher standards of financial conduct from all people in public life and an end to any abuses of the past. There is no more pressing task for this Parliament than to respond immediately to this public demand. Like every Member here, I believe that most Members of Parliament enter public life so that they can serve the public interest. I believe also that the vast majority of MPs work hard for their constituents and demonstrate by their service, whatever party they belong to, that they are in politics not for what they can get but for what they can give.
	But all of us have to have the humility to accept that public confidence has been shaken and that the battered reputation of this institution cannot be repaired without fundamental change. At precisely the moment when the public need their politicians to be focused on the issues that affect their lives—on fighting back against recession and keeping people in their jobs and homes—the subject of politics itself has become the focus of our politics. We cannot move our country forward unless we break with the old practices and the old ways. Each of us has a part to play in the hard task of regaining the country's trust, not for the sake of our different parties but for the sake of our common democracy. Without that trust, there can be no legitimacy; and without legitimacy, none of us can do the job our constituents have sent us here to do.
	We must reflect on what has happened, redress the abuses, ensure that nothing like this can ever happen again and ensure that the public see us as individual MPs accountable to our constituents. It will be what we now do, not just what we say, that will prove that we have learned and that we have changed. So first, all MPs' past and future expenses should and will be published on the internet in the next few days. Home claims submitted by MPs from all parts of the House over the past four years must, as we have agreed, be scrutinised by an independently led panel. That will ensure repayment where it is necessary and lead to discipline where there have been inappropriate claims. I know that you are working urgently to conclude this reassessment process, Mr. Speaker. We must now publish the past four years' receipts, and start and conclude the scrutiny process as quickly as possible.
	The House has already agreed to restrict expenses further, to those needed for parliamentary duties alone, to cut the costs for housing, to require all spending to be receipted and to ensure that incomes from second jobs are fully accounted for. All parties have committed themselves to accept the further recommendations of the independent Kelly committee, once they are received later this year, provided these proposals meet the tests of increased transparency, accountability and reduced costs for the taxpayer. Those steps to sort out the expenses crisis are necessary, but I think we all know that they are not sufficient. We need to go further.
	At its first meeting yesterday, the Government's democratic council decided to bring forward new legislative proposals before the summer Adjournment on two issues that have been the subject of constructive cross-party discussion. First, we propose that the House of Commons—and subsequently the House of Lords—move from the old system of self-regulation to independent, statutory regulation. That will mean the immediate creation of a new Parliamentary Standards Authority, which will have delegated power to regulate the system of allowances. No more can Westminster operate in ways reminiscent of the last century, whereby Members make up the rules and operate them among themselves.
	The proposed new authority would take over the role of the Fees Office in authorising Members' claims, oversee the new allowance system, following proposals from the Committee on Standards in Public Life, maintain the Register of Members' Interests, and disallow claims, require repayment and apply firm and appropriate sanctions in cases of financial irregularity. I welcome the cross-party support for these proposals, which will be contained in the Bill that we will introduce very soon. I believe that the whole House will also wish to agree that, as part of this process, the new regulator should scrutinise efficiency and value for money in Parliament's expenditure, and ensure, as suggested to Sir Christopher Kelly, that Parliament costs less.
	Secondly, the House will be asked to agree a statutory code of conduct for all MPs, clarifying their role in relation to their constituents and Parliament, detailing what the electorate can expect and the consequences that will follow for those who fail to deliver. It will codify much more clearly the different potential offences that must be addressed, and the options available to sanction. These measures will be included in a short, self-standing Bill on the conduct of Members in the Commons, which will be introduced and debated before the summer Adjournment. This will address the most immediate issues about which we know the public are most upset, but it will be only the first stage of our legislation on the constitution.
	The current system of sanctions for misconduct by Members is not fit for purpose. It does not give the public the confidence they need that wrongdoing will be dealt with in an appropriate way. The last time a person was expelled from the House was 55 years ago, in 1954. It remains the case that Members can be sentenced to up to one year in prison without being required to give up their parliamentary seat. The sanctions available against financial misconduct or corruption have not been updated to meet the needs of the times. This is not a modern and accountable system that puts the interests of constituents first. It needs to change.
	There will be consultation with all sides of the House to come forward with new proposals for dealing effectively with inappropriate behaviour, including the potential options of effective exclusion and recall for gross financial misconduct, identified by the new independent regulator and by the House itself.
	The House of Lords needs to be reformed, too. Following a meeting of the House Committee of the House of Lords, and at their request, I have today written to the Senior Salaries Review Body to ask it to review the system of financial support in the House of Lords, to increase its accountability, to enhance its transparency and to reduce its cost. For the first time, there will also be new legislation for new disciplinary sanctions for the misconduct of peers in the House of Lords.
	We must also take forward urgent modernisation of the procedures of the House of Commons, so I am happy to give the Government's support to a proposal from my hon. Friend the Chairman of the Public Administration Committee that we will work with a special parliamentary commission comprising Members from all sides of this House, convened for a defined period to advise on necessary reforms, including making Select Committee processes more democratic, scheduling more and better time for non-Government business in the House, and enabling the public to initiate directly some issues for debate.
	Given the vital role that transparency plays in sweeping away the decrepit system of allowances and holding power to account, I believe that we should do more to spread the culture and practice of freedom of information. So, as a next step, the Justice Secretary will set out further plans to look at broadening the application of freedom of information to include additional bodies which also need to be subject to greater transparency and accountability. This is the public's money, and they should know how it is spent.
	I should also announce that, as part of extending the availability of official information, and as our response to the Dacre review, we will progressively reduce the time taken to release official documents. As the report recommended, we have considered the need to strengthen protection for particularly sensitive material, and there will be protection of royal family and Cabinet papers as part of strictly limited exemptions. But we will reduce the time for release of all other official documents below the current 30 years, to 20 years. So that Government information is accessible and useful for the widest possible group of people, Sir Tim Berners-Lee, who led the creation of the worldwide web, has agreed to help us to drive the opening up of access to Government data on the web over the coming months.
	In the last 12 years, we have created the devolved Administrations, ended the hereditary principle in the House of Lords, and introduced the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the Human Rights Act 1998. Just as, through recent changes, we are removing ancient royal prerogatives and making the Executive more accountable to Parliament on central issues such as the declaration of peace and war, appointments and treaties, so, too, we want to establish and renew the legitimacy of Parliament itself by its becoming more accountable to the people.
	Democratic reform cannot be led in Westminster alone. It must be led by engagement with the public. That is part of the lesson of the last month: the public want to be, and should be, part of the solution. So we must build a process that engages citizens themselves, people of all parties and none, of all faiths and no faith, from every background and every part of the country. So over the coming months, the Government will set out proposals for debate and reform on five remaining major constitutional issues.
	First, we will move forward with reform of the House of Lords. The Government's White Paper, published last July, for which there is backing from other parties, committed us to an 80 or 100 per cent. elected House of Lords, so we must now take the next steps as we complete this reform. The Government will come forward with published proposals for the final stage of House of Lords reform before the summer Adjournment, including the next steps we can take to resolve the position of the remaining hereditary peers and other outstanding issues.
	Secondly, setting out the rights that people can expect as a British citizen, but also the responsibilities that come with those rights, is a fundamental step in balancing power between Government, Parliament and the people. It is for many people extraordinary that Britain still has a largely unwritten constitution. I personally favour a written constitution. I recognise that this change would represent a historic shift in our constitutional arrangements, so any such proposals will be subject to wide public debate and the drafting of such a constitution should ultimately be a matter for the widest possible consultation with the British people themselves.
	Thirdly, there is the devolution of power and the engagement of people themselves in their local communities. The House will be aware of the proposals for the completion of the devolution of policing and justice in Northern Ireland. Next week, the Calman commission will report with recommendations on the future of devolution in Scotland within the United Kingdom. The Government of Wales Act 2006 permits further devolution in Wales, on which discussions are taking place. My right hon. Friend the Communities Secretary will set out how we will strengthen the engagement of citizens in the democratic life of their own communities as we progress the next stage of devolution in England. So we must consider whether we should offer stronger, clearly defined powers to local government and city regions and strengthen their accountability to local people.
	Last year, we published our review of the electoral system and there is a long-standing debate on this issue. I still believe that the link between the MP and constituency is essential and that the constituency is best able to hold its MP to account. We should be prepared to propose change only if there is a broad consensus in the country that it would strengthen our democracy and our politics by improving the effectiveness and legitimacy of both Government and Parliament and by enhancing the level and quality of representation and public engagement. We will set out proposals for taking this debate forward.
	Fifthly, we will set out proposals for increasing public engagement in politics. To improve electoral registration, we will consider how we increase the number of people on the register and help to combat fraud. On receipt of the youth commission report, and having heard from young people themselves, we will set out the steps we will take to increase the engagement of young people in politics, including whether to give further consideration to the voting age.
	As we come forward with proposals, in each case the Government will look to consult widely. All proposed reforms will be underpinned by cross-party discussions. Our proposals will also be informed by leading external figures, including academics and others who command public respect and have a recognised interest or expertise in the different elements of democratic reform. I expect this to conclude in time to shape the Government's forward legislative programme and to feed into the Queen's Speech. [Interruption.]
	In the midst of all the recriminations, let us seize the moment to lift our politics to a higher standard— [Interruption.] I do not think the House is behaving well today when it is debating its own future and how the public see what we do. In the midst of all the rancour and recriminations about expenses, let us seize the moment to lift our politics to a higher standard. In the midst of doubt, let us revive confidence. Let us also stand together because on this, at least, I think we all agree—Britain deserves a political system that is equal to the hopes and character of our people. Let us differ on policy—that is inevitable—but let us stand together for integrity and democracy. That is now more essential than ever, so I commend this statement to the House.

Gangmasters Licensing Act 2004 (Amendment) Bill

Jim Sheridan: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to apply the provisions of the Gangmasters Licensing Act 2004 to the construction industry; and for connected purposes.
	I shall always be proud that this Government gave their support to the passing and implementation of my private Member's Bill targeting illegal gangmasters. That legislation sought to flush out those who were exploiting both migrant and indigenous workers, and despite the powerful arguments put forward at the time, the Bill covered only agricultural and related industries. I, along with the trade unions and legal gangmasters—we were supported by many of my colleagues who are here to support this Bill, and I remain extremely appreciative of their assistance—argued at the time that should that Bill prove effective, the unscrupulous gangmasters would move into other industries. The evidence suggests that that is exactly what has happened. The construction trade was the industry that we used as an example then, because of its diverse and mobile nature, and it is where we find illegal gangmasters working now. Those of us who worked in the construction and related industries are well aware of the dangerous environment that those on the job face, and I will return to that later.
	Migrant workers who come to this country for legitimate work are often lured into the twilight world of illegal gangmasters, so I caution those who blame the workers and ask them to focus instead on the real villains: the illegal gangmasters. Anecdotal evidence from those who have suffered under those unscrupulous people suggests that they are experiencing the same despairing conditions as did those who were exposed in the agriculture industry—none more so than the Chinese workers who perished on the shores of Morecambe bay.
	Despite the current financial situation, most commentators agree that we can build our way of this downturn with major construction projects, such as the Olympic village, and related issues. What we do not need is a Morecambe bay-type tragedy in the construction of the Olympics. Health and safety matters are extremely important to those in the building trade and wider related industries, and people must have the fundamental right of returning home safely after their work.
	Since 2007, there have been 120 fatal accidents in the construction industry. Again, there is evidence that illegal gangmasters supply unskilled labour to major construction companies and their subcontractors to carry out skilled and dangerous work without taking into consideration the safety consequences for the general public, others on the site and themselves. These gangmasters also undermine the legitimate employers who invest in training, and pay their taxes and national insurance contributions. That is particularly true of—and financially damaging to—small businesses struggling to survive and compete.
	On the financial implications, there is increasingly tangible evidence that gangmasters, who are required to register, should also be tax-compliant and follow the VAT registration rules. In 2007 alone, the Gangmasters Licensing Authority identified more than £2 million in extra VAT payments for the Exchequer—the figure takes no account of additional income tax and the national insurance contributions now being paid as a result of the GLA's work. So the Government have a vested interest in giving serious consideration to this issue, and I sincerely hope that they do so.
	Members of the House should also be aware of the serious matter of community unrest; where genuine workers see others doing their work and not contributing to the community or wider society, social unrest and frustration is generated. That manifests itself, as has happened this week, in people turning to extremist parties such as the British National party, which are happy to exploit such situations. There is a political advantage in addressing this issue and demonstrating to the workers that we are on their side and on the side of good employers.
	May I give the House just a flavour of some of the activities being undertaken by these gangmasters, by going through some case studies? A14 Vehicle Hire, which is based in Kettering, had its licence revoked with immediate effect after serious concerns were expressed over the safety of its workers. The GLA uncovered allegations of workers being housed in overcrowded and unsafe accommodation, and a number of houses were immediately closed by the local authority for breaches of gas and electrical safety regulations. Some 15 adults and three children were found in a four-bedroom house.
	Timberland Homes Recruitment Ltd had its licence revoked with immediate effect on 6 May 2008.The company was based in Suffolk but sent workers to pick flowers in Cornwall and Scotland. GLA officers found serious abuses, including a threatening letter to workers stating that they were not free to leave before the end of the contract without paying £700, and that if they did not have the money, it would be recovered from the workers or their families in their home country. Some workers stated that they received £24 for a nine-hour day. No time-sheets were used, so pay could not be accurately recorded. The Vehicle and Operator Services Agency issued prohibition notices on six Timberland minibuses in Cornwall, but Timberland still transported workers to Scotland in the same vehicles. Timberland Homes Recruitment Ltd did not appeal against the GLA decision. It is no longer permitted to trade in the licensable sectors, but it is believed to be operating in the construction industry.
	I shall give a second case study. Morantus Ltd, which traded as 247 Staff in Burton on Trent, supplied workers across the midlands to British Bakeries, Thorntons and Florette. A GLA investigation found that Robert Taylor, director of Morantus, forced migrant workers to live in run-down, cramped houses, and made them pay over the odds for that accommodation as a condition of finding them work. The officers found a room, measuring 2.8 m by 3.8 m, that housed three adults, two children and a baby; it had a double mattress, a single mattress and a child's seat. Money was withheld from workers, and they were forced to sign standing orders under the threat of not receiving work. Workers were not paid the national minimum wage, and they were bonded to the accommodation; if they wanted to keep their jobs, they had to use, and pay for, the accommodation provided. Morantus lost its appeal against the GLA decision, and is now believed to be trading in the construction industry.
	I turn to the subject of independent research. An independent report published in March 2009 by the universities of Liverpool and Sheffield, commissioned by the GLA, shows that the tough enforcement approach of the GLA makes for effective regulation. The researchers found that
	"licensing has been an appropriate tool to regulate labour providers...agency workers are now better placed because of government regulation; and...the GLA is an effective and efficient regulator."
	That is why we would like the gangmaster licensing legislation to be extended to the construction industry.
	In conclusion, the trade unions, the Federation of Small Businesses and the Federation of Master Builders are asking for help to get the industry through these difficult times. With a little bit of vision and support, we can bring about a change for the construction industry.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Ordered,
	That Jim Sheridan, Mr. Michael Clapham, Alun Michael, Mrs. Ann Cryer, Mr. David Hamilton, Mr. Ian McCartney, John Robertson, Mr. Stephen Hepburn, Sandra Osborne, Mr. Jim Devine, Mr. Jim McGovern and Mr. David Anderson present the Bill.
	Jim Sheridan accordingly presented the Bill.
	 Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 16 October and to be printed (Bill 109).

Chris Bryant: I beg to move, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
	As I am sure hon. Members will know, the first clause of the Bill amends the Geneva Conventions Act 1957, which itself incorporated the 1949 Geneva conventions; those conventions were built on the 1864 Geneva convention, which was linked to the creation of the Red Cross. On 12 August—the glorious 12th—it will be the 60th anniversary of the 1949 Geneva conventions. Oddly enough, that happens to be my uncle's birthday; even more oddly, he used to make "The Famous Grouse". That date will be a multiple anniversary this year.
	The four conventions of 1949 were built on former versions. First and foremost, they were to protect the wounded or the sick and ensure that such defenceless combatants should be respected and cared for, whatever their nationality. The personnel attending them, the buildings in which they sheltered and the equipment used for their benefit were to be protected, and a red cross on a white background was to be the emblem of that immunity. Other elements of that first convention have been modified over the years—in relation, for instance, to medical personnel and chaplains. Originally, if such personnel fell into enemy hands, they had to be repatriated immediately. Now, however, the situation is rather different.
	The second convention related to the protection of those in combat at sea. The third was for the protection of prisoners of war. For many centuries, this country has sought to make sure that there was a proper understanding of how prisoners of war should be protected. The French have sometimes tried to remind us about Agincourt, but for the past few hundred years we have been wholeheartedly committed to ensuring that prisoners of war are treated properly. Finally, the fourth convention was to protect civilians.
	The distinctive emblem has been referred to and is being amended by the new optional protocol. It was defined in article 38 of one of the 1949 Geneva conventions:
	"As a compliment to Switzerland, the heraldic emblem of the red cross on a white ground, formed by reversing the Federal colours, is retained as the emblem and distinctive sign of the Medical Service of armed forces."
	That gave protection to all those who were serving.

Chris Bryant: More to the point, the Minister cannot remember the question, so whether he would be able to remember the answer is quite another matter— [ Interruption. ] I know that it related to schedule 7, and the hon. Gentleman referred to line 36, but I think that he meant line 36 on the first page of the schedule, because it has several line 36s. I will write to him at length on the issue, although I do not think that it will prevent him from supporting the clause. For the sake of the fullness of the debate, I will be happy to write to him. Without further ado, I shall now sit down.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Chris Bryant: I think that the hon. Gentleman is right, and I apologise if I inadvertently misled him. As I understand it, the five countries with peace-building missions have signed up, but if I am wrong I shall be happy to write to him. However, there are missions in 16 countries, and they obviously vary in their aims and the goals that they are intended to pursue. The point is that peacekeeping missions already have protection, whereas those missions involved in peace building that the Security Council has not said are at serious risk do not have protection. As the Security Council has never said that about any mission, it is clear that there is a legal loophole that the optional protocol is designed to tidy up.
	I have to correct an impression that I gave earlier to the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson), and which has to do with the number of countries that have signed and ratified the optional protocol. Thirty-four countries have signed the optional protocol, and 18 have ratified it. That number will become 19 if we ratify it, and 22 countries have to do so for the optional protocol to come into force.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Could I just remind the hon. Gentleman about using the correct parliamentary term?

Angus Robertson: The hon. Gentleman has clearly missed the point that I have been trying to make. This is a motion for the dissolution of Parliament; it is not a motion of no confidence in the Government or the Prime Minister. On that basis, I return to the point that I want to make. Sorry, before I do, I should have said that I was in primary 7 rather than primary 8, of course.
	I return to the issue of the public's view on whether there should be a general election. The BBC commissioned a poll by Ipsos MORI at the end of May, and 48 per cent. of respondents said they believed that half or more of MPs are corrupt. Asked whether they trusted MPs to tell the truth, 76 per cent. said that they did not and only 20 per cent. said that they did. The public tend to be more positive about their local MP than they do about MPs in general, which will be a relief to many of us. That was a finding in the BBC survey, but 85 per cent. of those surveyed want an independent judicial body to scrutinise to MPs' affairs.

Lembit �pik: The hon. Gentleman has made an interesting point about the difference between how MPs are viewed locally and how the corporate body of politics is viewed nationally. Does he agree that although individual Members of Parliament have earned credibility and support in local communities by working in them, the great malaise to which he refers has come about because there has been a fracture in the relationship of trust between the people who elect us to this body and us as a corporate group?
	Does the hon. Gentleman not also feel it is important that we should have a transparent discussion about constitutional change? The Prime Minister of the UKnot the First Minister of Scotland, who is herealluded to some of that. We have a collective responsibility, beyond even what hethe hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson)has mentioned, to try to make sure that we win that trust. That will take a lot of effort.

Angus Robertson: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and I shall come back to that point shortly; there is a job of work to be done on that important issue.
	I return to the BBC survey on public opinion on this important question. Some 62 per cent. of respondents said that they believed MPs put self-interest ahead of the country and their constituents. Only one in five, or 20 per cent., of the public is satisfied with how the Westminster Parliament is doing its job. The figures are damning and if we do not grasp the thorny nettle and deal with the issue, we will have a huge problem.
	The recent expenses scandal is the biggest single recent reason for the crisis of confidence, and we should put a lot of effort into getting it sorted. However, it comes after years of House of Commons prevarication and resistance to openness and transparency. The  Daily Telegraph revelations exposed a totally unacceptable state of affairs.
	The public are right to be very angry about the flipping of properties, the avoidance of capital gains tax and the claims for phantom mortgages. They rightly ask how it is that there appears to be one rule for the public and another for MPs who have been caught out. They also ask how a tainted Parliament with tainted Members can find a trusted, credible solution to the crisis.
	Of course it was right to do radical, immediate surgery. That has happened in a number of individual cases, and it has been approached by the different political parties that have finally grasped the nettle of transparency. At the recent meeting of party leaders called by Mr. Speaker, I pointed out that our parties have already committed to a higher standard of transparencynamely, that used in the Scottish Parliament. Years ago at Holyrood, the Labour party, the Conservative party, the Liberal Democrats, the SNP and others agreed to that better system. I suggested to the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, the leader of the Liberal Democrats and others that we should simply emulate that system. They agreed and we are now on the right path with the plans that Parliament should publish our claims regularly. In the meantime, many MPs, myself included, have proactively put their details up for public access on our own websites.

Angus Robertson: I said that I am going to make progress, so I will.
	After all, the Kelly commission reports in the autumn, the Parliamentary Standards Authority proposal is still at the discussion stage, and all parties are signed up to these structural improvements. There is no reason why we cannot have an election; it would not delay a single thing. We should embrace the opportunity of an historic, reformist electionnot the poor second of yet another presentational relaunch of a tired Government. Let us imagine a general election campaign based around on the various ideas for democratic reformthe ideas of the Prime Minister and of others, galvanising public interest and support, if that is what there were.
	Of course, we in the SNP and Plaid Cymru would argue for decision making closer to home, but we would also make the case for wholesale Westminster reform, such as electoral reform. One can imagine a Parliament properly reflecting the views of the peoplewith, of course, the necessary safeguards of a minimum electoral hurdle. How about a fully democratic Parliament, ending the grotesque farce of a Second Chamber in the self-styled mother of all Parliaments without any democratic mandate whatsoever? How about fixed-term Parliaments, ending the whip hand of the Executive over the democratic process? How about strengthening Parliament with stronger Committees, the proper scrutiny of legislation, and less curtailment of detailed oversight, ending the travesty of undebated amendments? How about a proper constitution? Those are all exciting ideas, some of which are supported in all parts of the House.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Can we conduct this debate in an orderly manner, please?

Peter Hain: What about the statutory minimum wage? I do not remember massive support for that from the nationalists.
	To dissolve Parliament now would be to walk away from the necessity for the reform that voters are demanding, as the hon. Member for Moray rightly said, and that we are delivering in the form set out by the Prime Minister earlier today. I heard the hon. Member for Moray waxing lyricaland being very persuasiveabout the need for democratic reform. Virtually every one of the proposals that he advocated was enunciated from this Dispatch Box by the Prime Minister a few hours ago.
	To dissolve Parliament now would be to turn our backs on the British people in their time of economic need and insecurity. Neither of the two great challenges that we facethe political challenge and the economic challengewould be solved by an election. Playing with parliamentary motions might be a priority for Opposition parties. Cleaning up politics and getting the country back to work is Labour's priority.

Peter Hain: The reason that we have not been able to get our reform through the House of Lords is that the House of Lords blocked it. We have only about 30 per cent. of the votes for Labour in the House of Lords, and the Conservative partydespite now advocating a policy of an elected second Chambercannot deliver its own peers in the House of Lords in such a vote. Sooner rather than later, however, we will put that question to the House of Lords, and we will hope to carry the House with us in getting full reform for a democratic second Chamber.
	Meanwhile, there is a lot to do. Of course the European elections were terrible for the Labour party. But, far more significantly, they were an alarm call for all the parties, and for parliamentary democracy itself. For every party, a low turnout at elections is the clearest sign that the British people are not engaged with the political process. That is our fault, not theirs. We seem obsessed with procedure and tribal party politicsas we can see this afternoonand now the public also think that MPs are all in it for our own ends.
	If this motion were carried and Parliament were dissolved, all that the poll would amount to would be another referendum on MPs' expenses. The low turnout and the rising support for fringe and extreme parties show us one thing: that people used their vote last Thursday to protest, not on the finer points of European policy, but on the story of the dayindeed, the story of every single one of the past 30 days: MPs' expenses.

Peter Hain: I could not agree more with the hon. Gentleman that the media are far too obsessed, almost to the exclusion of all else, with process. It is process, process, process rather than substance, substance, substance. That is why we will carry on with delivering our policies to get the housing market going again, to build more social housing, to tackle the lack of confidence in business and to ensure that business is supported so that we can recover from this economic crisis brought about by the global financial collapse and move the country forward. Then there will be a choicea very clear choiceat the next general election.
	We do not need a referendum on expenses because we have just had one. We were all given a real kicking by the voters and we understand the message: Clean up, shape up, get on with the business of Government and come back to us when the problem is fixed. Where the Opposition parties posture, we deliver. We are determined to take the necessary action, not to walk away.
	Just imagine what might happen to the economy if Parliament were dissolved and we had an election. In the middle of probably the worst financial crisis the world has faced in living memory, Britain would face weeks and weeks of instability and uncertaintyjust when there are reports of rising consumer confidence, just when business surveys show the pace of decline is slowing, just when mortgage approvals have risen for the third month in a row and just when the poison infecting our banks has been stemmed. Why, just at this critical moment when the global economy is still volatile, do the nationalists want to trigger instability in the markets and in the British economy?
	Let us imagine for a moment pursuing this nationalist-Tory alternative. We dissolve Parliament, then spend the next three weeks fighting each other rather than the global crisis, and the nationalists do not have a clue what to do about it. The hon. Member for Carmarthen, East and Dinefwr (Adam Price), who rather fancies himself as an economist, praised Iceland as an inspirational model. No sooner had he done so than its economy imploded, while his other small country model, Ireland, has sadly had its own serious difficulties, yet Plaid lauded both Iceland and Ireland as an arc of prosperity.
	As for the Tories, the real reason they want an election now is that they cannot go on for ever dodging the questions. They have no policies at all except for multi-billion cuts in public investment.

Adam Price: The Secretary of State's speech is another good argument for an early dissolution. He is obviously out of practice. If Plaid Cymru has nothing to contribute in terms of the economic crisis, why did his party agree to form a coalition with us, and why is the leader of my party the Minister for the Economy and Transport coming up with the ProAct wage subsidy scheme, which the Secretary of State has himself praised and described as an innovative scheme that should be copied here?

Peter Hain: Is this not curious? The Scottish Government have never had more money than they have now. Their budget, like that of the Welsh Assembly Government, has more than doubled since we came to power in 1997.
	What is the real nationalist agenda? Why would the nationalists dissolve this Parliament today? It would not just be for the purpose of an immediate election; they would dissolve this Parliament for ever. [Hon. Members: Hear, hear!] There we are. They are cheering the idea. If they were frank, they would admit that they would break up the United Kingdom, cutting off Wales and Scotland from the main markets, population centres, wealth and international influence of the United Kingdom.

William Hague: I congratulate the Secretary of State for Wales; to hold that office is one of the greatest honours that life can bring, and to hold it twice is a piece of great good fortune. He said that I had in the past somehow landed the current shadow Welsh Secretary in it, but I can assure him that, the Conservatives having won in Wales for the first time in 90 years, she does not feel very landed in it at the moment. He should hope to be landed in it in a similar way in future elections. Such a description was therefore not very appropriate, therefore, and nor was deriding any other party for getting about a third of the vote when there was no region or nation of the United Kingdom in which his Government received a third of the vote last week, only two in which they received a quarter of the vote, some in which they did not get a fifth of the vote, and some in which the governing party of this country did not get a tenth of the vote.
	I congratulate the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) on moving the motion, which, it will be no surprise to discover, the official Opposition can readily support. The crux of the question is simple. By common consent across all parts of the House, our country faces enormous challenges. Members of all parties are familiar with them: the challenge of restoring the health of an economy battered by recession and high debt levels; the ever-present challenge of improving public services; the challenge of reducing violent crime and of improving national security at a time of international terrorism; and the challenge of restoring faith in our political system after scandals and revelations that have hit this House hard, and rebuilding respect and confidence in our democracy itself.
	The question before us is whether these tasks and challenges are best faced for the next 10 or 11 months by the current Parliament, now in its twilight year, with a large and growing number of hon. and right hon. Members leaving its ranks, burdened with a serious loss of its reputation, with a minimal and diminishing opportunity to pass fresh legislation, with many decisions on hold and with a visibly divided Government, or whether they are better faced by a new Parliament, with new Members and renewed energy, with the expectation of several years of work before it, with a mandate approved by the people of the country, and with the authority that comes from demonstrable popular approval in a democracysomething that the current Government have forfeited and the Government of the current Prime Minister have neither sought nor ever received. One only has to ask the question to see that to most people in this country there is a clear and emphatic answer.
	The Prime Minister's statement to the House earlier was peppered with references to legitimacy, accountability, democracy and engagement, but it never seems to occur to him that one way to bring about those characteristics for any Government is to consult the 44 million voters of this country and let them have their say. He has set up a national democratic renewal council, which turns out to be a Cabinet committee behind closed doors with a title so risible in its grandiose pomposity that it shows a complete lack of self-awareness of the ridicule with which the nation views the Government.
	How can we inject vigour, energy and freshness into political debate better than by consulting the people of the country? It is apparent beyond argument that the majority of the people, who are genuinely no fans of holding elections unnecessarily, believe that they now have the right to give their own verdict. Every survey shows it, and every time any of us walk down the street we hear it. Some people feel let down by their elected representatives and wish to have their say. Many can sense, with the sure instinct of the British people, that a crucial decision point is coming and that there is no reason to delay.
	Perhaps even more have been watching a bitter battle take place within the governing party about whether one unelected Prime Minister should be replaced with another one. It is not surprising that they should feel that the question of who leads our country is not the private preserve of a dysfunctional Government at the tail end of a Parliament, but a matter for the collective judgment of the nation.

William Hague: There are many cases in history when Governments have called general elections because they wish to seek a mandate for whatever policies they were putting to the country long before the expiry of a Parliament [ Interruption. ] I refer the hon. Gentleman to Baldwin in 1923, before the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), says that that was not a Tory Government. Indeed, many Governments in the 1950s and the 1980s sought re-election before the end of the Parliament, and on some of those occasions, the Opposition were asking for an electioncertainly they were in 1923. If the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright) has any further historical inquiries, I hope that he will make them.
	While the question of the dissolution of Parliament cannot simply be settled by reference to public demand, it has to be accepted by any commentator or participant in our politics that the current circumstances of this Parliament, already in its final year, are without precedent in modern times. Not only is public faith in this House at its lowest possibly at any time since the late 18th century and the mail franking scandala historical reference for the hon. Gentlemanbut public support for the Government is, by reference to any of the widespread elections held last week, the lowest by some distance for any incumbent Government at any point in our modern democratic history. Such a combination means that this Parliament lacks the authority to embark on new and substantial programmes of policy or reform, even if it had time or if the Government had the energy, purpose or vision.
	Vision, of course, was the crucial ingredient promised by the Prime Minister when he suddenly called off the general election planned in the autumn of 2007. He said that he would not call an election so that he could set out his vision. Curiously, he then forgot to do so. Indeed, the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble)a former Labour Ministerhas pointed that out. In her letter last week, she wrote that
	the vision has not materialised.
	She added that the people
	look to the government for high quality public services, and a sense of purpose and direction for the country. The prime minister has to articulate that and, sadly, it hasn't happened.
	That is what Labour Members think.
	Then the reason not to have an election was to set out the vision. Now the reason memorably given by the Prime Minister in his interview a month ago on GMTV is that an election would cause chaos. That revealing insight into the bunker-like mentality of No. 10 Downing street is a further argument that the people in the country should have their say. The Prime Minister feared chaos at the ballot box, presumably in place of the well-ordered conduct of government that we have witnessed in recent weeks. The Home Secretary resigned on Tuesday, the Communities and Local Government Secretary on Wednesday, and the Work and Pensions Secretary on Thursday. Downing street worked for 48 hours, through the night, to save the Prime Minister from being overthrown by his Cabinet. What a relief it is that there was no chaos in this country in the last couple of weeks.
	The argument against holding an election on the grounds of chaos possesses three shattering weaknesses. First, it can presumably be used at any time and could be used to justify never asking the people to go to the polls for fear of the chaotic consequences that they might haplessly bring down on themselves. It is an argument of which Ceausescu would have been proud, as he pathetically waved from the balcony at the tens of thousands who had come to remove him.
	Secondly, such an argument shows a patronising misreading of the people of this country, who have never in recent times produced chaotic scenes in a general election and have seldom produced a chaotic result. The Prime Minister can rest assured that they will go about their democratic duty when they get the chance without any trace of chaos, but with a quiet and determined efficiency.
	Thirdly, it is a comment that says little for those countries that have recently had a full-scale general election, even in the midst of a world economic recession. The hon. Member for Ealing, North (Stephen Pound) pointed out that some of them had fixed-term Parliaments, but they still managed to conduct their elections in the middle of that recession. They include among their number no less a country than India, the world's largest and most complex democracy, where a respected Government won the authority and increased freedom of manoeuvre that came from a renewal of their mandate. The United States of America is the world's most powerful democracy, in which elections produced a renewal and reinvigoration of national leadership on an utterly historic scale. The people of India and America managed to have their elections in a perfectly orderly way, and after campaigns that were far longer than a general election campaign in this country, but the Prime Minister believes that an election in this countryfrom which those countries derive so many of their proud democratic traditionswould be impossibly chaotic. What does that say about his view of Britain and the British people? It is yet further proof that he is incapable of trusting the people of Britain.
	To be fair to the Secretary of State, his loyalty to the Prime Minister does not extend to adopting the nonsensical arguments against an election employed by the Prime Minister. The gist of the Secretary of State's argument was that Parliament has important work to do and that on parliamentary standards and the economy, only this Parliament can clear up its own mess. That, of course, is not remotely true. In each case, the decisions that are to be made are so serious and public approval for them so essential that they would be far better carried out after all the debate, explanation, discussion and transparency that only a general election can bring.
	The Government's argument is that it is impossible to interrupt proceedings for even a month for a general election, but that we can interrupt them for nearly three months for the summer recess. If Parliament is engaged in such important work at the moment, why is there so little business before the House of Commons this month? Why have a last Session of Parliament, beginning this autumn, that can be only a few months in length? If we work it out, we see that perhaps a maximum of 14 weeks might be available in which legislation can be considered. What has happened to the important legislation that was going through Parliament in this Session, some of which has mysteriously disappearednamely, the Bill to allow part-privatisation of the Royal Mail?
	Lord Mandelson, to whom I believe we must now deferentially refer as the First Secretary of State, has said of the Postal Services Bill:
	It would be irresponsible of the Government to allow delays to the...measures needed to reform Royal Mail and secure the future of the universal postal service...Any delay would merely serve to threaten the sustainability of the network.[ Official Report, House of Lords, 11 May 2009; Vol. 710, c. 848.]
	The Government's case against the dissolution of Parliament would be much stronger if they even knew whether and when they want to proceed with a measure that they have said can stand no delay and that is meant to be before Parliament now.
	In mentioning Lord Mandelson, I did not mean to send a chill down the spine of Ministers, but it is now impossible to discuss the operation of government or Parliament without reference to his opinions. The unelected Prime Minister has managed to produce the most powerful unelected deputy since Henry VIII appointed Cardinal Wolseyexcept that Cardinal Wolsey was more sensitive in his handling of colleagues than the noble Lord Mandelson is. His personal retinue of 11 Ministers, six of whom attend on him in the House of Lords, is the largest in the Government. The growth of the unelected portion of Her Majesty's Government is further evidence of the need for the dissolution of Parliament. We also need the fresh air of electoral competition to blow through the dark recesses of several Departments.
	The Prime Minister who lectures us all on democratic renewal is appointing peers to positions of power on a scale unknown for decades. There are now more peers attending the Cabinet than at any time since the days of Harold Macmillan. Half the Ministers in the Foreign Office now sit in the House of Lords or are about to do so, including no less a figure than the new Minister for Europe. So after years in which hon. Members in all parts of the House have called for better democratic scrutiny of EU decision making, we have arrived at a situation where elected Members of Parliament will be unable to question the Minister for Europe at all and where, a week before an important EU summit, the Minister is not available to either House of Parliament. That is not democratic renewal, but democratic reversal by the Prime Minister.
	The Prime Minister who told us today about the importance of accountability and legitimacy has just managed to appoint an enterprise tsar in Sir Alan Sugar, but no one seems to know whether he will have Government machinery reporting to him. Apparently, moreover, he, too, cannot be questioned in either House of Parliament at all.
	The Lord Mandelson, denied the opportunity to become Foreign Secretary by the sad combination of a Prime Minister too weak to remove his Foreign Secretary and, equally, a Foreign Secretary too weak to challenge the Prime Minister, has gone around instead collecting titles and even whole Departments to add to his name. His title now adds up to, The right hon. the Baron Mandelson of Foy in the county of Herefordshire and Hartlepool in the county of Durham, First Secretary of State, Lord President of the Privy Council and Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills. It would be no surprise to wake up in the morning and find that he had become an archbishop [Laughter]. That is exactly what happened with Cardinal Wolsey.
	We are left with a Government held together solely by fear. The Prime Minister is unable to remove Ministers in whom he has lost faith, for fear that they will quit altogether; Ministers are unwilling to challenge a Prime Minister in whom they have lost faith, for fear that they will no longer be Ministers; Labour Back Benchers are unwilling to remove a Prime Minister in whom they have certainly lost faith, for fear of having to have an electionand all of them are living in fear of one Minister with a very long title for whom, at the last election, no one in the country ever voted at all.
	That is the situation. The Government are locked together in an embrace of mutual terror and diminished legitimacy, but their refusal to face the voters can no longer be defended. There comes a point when democratic renewal is indeed necessary, and the country knows and understands that that is now.
	The Prime Minister has made a statement today on constitutional reform in an effort to justify his continuation in office. Leave aside the transparent desperation and sheer unadulterated cynicism of looking to a referendum on voting reform only when he has seemingly lost hope of retaining power under the voting rules prevailing today, the fact that the referendum on the European constitution that he promised in the last general election manifesto has never been held at all and the fact that progress on House of Lords reform has been stymied by indecision or indifference during his term of office so far, whatever the history of these proposals and whatever their merits, a Prime Minister at this stage of a Parliament can command the real authority to implement such changes only by including them in a general election manifesto and asking the country to approve them. But the Prime Minister's objective is not to strengthen constitutional change by winning a mandate for it in a general election. Instead, it is to avert a general election by coming up with proposals for constitutional changethe exact reverse of true democratic accountability and legitimacy in government.
	No set of proposals can now overcome the fact that this is a Parliament that has lost its moral authority, and that the Government derived from that Parliament have lost the unity, authority and confidence to govern in the national interest. The events of the last eight days, in which 11 Ministers have resigned from the Government, have summed up for most voters the sense of decay and division that makes them want to be consulted about the future.
	The words of resigning Ministers speak for themselvesthey require no embellishment by the Opposition. The right hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Jane Kennedy) said:
	I have been unhappy about smears against colleagues, the undermining of colleagues and friends by No. 10.
	The right hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (James Purnell) said to the Prime Minister:
	I am calling on you to stand aside to give our party a fighting chance of winning.
	The right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) said:
	Several of the women attending Cabinet...have been treated by you as little more than female window dressing...you have strained every sinew of...loyalty.
	The hon. Member for Northampton, North, whom I cited earlier, has said that
	the person at the top has to forge a group of strong politicians into a united, coherent team to provide stable government. And that has, painfully, not happened either.
	The right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) said:
	Even I didn't think a Brown administration would be as inept as this one.
	The quotes go on, and they come from Labour Members. It is not necessary to read them all outit is almost impossible to do so in the time available. It is impossible to recall, even from the dark and dying days of other Administrations, such condemnation of a Government from within their own ranks.

Tony Wright: I have said a good deal of that over the years, if I may say so, and I do not want to go there again, because I think and hope we have moved on. What I am trying to sayhon. Members may disagree with me, but it is pretty evident from what has happened in recent weeks and what happened last weekis that we have a house that is burning down. It therefore seems a bizarre moment to say, Shall we have a competition to decide which colour to paint it?  [Interruption.] We have to put the fire out [Interruption.]

David Heath: I shall sing it to the hon. Gentleman later, if he makes an appointment.
	I have explained why we need an immediate election. There is, of course, a counter-argument, and we have heard itrather inadequately, I may sayfrom the Secretary of State for Wales. He said that we faced unprecedented economic difficulties, and that is absolutely right. This is a crucial time for this country, but that is why it is so important that we have a mandate for the difficult policies involved. The Government have done some things that I support, and some have been bold policies. However, they cannot say that they have the support of the British people in carrying them out, and the consequences will be with us for a long time. I do not buy the notion that we cannot have an election in the middle of an economic crisis because, as the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) said, major democracies across the world have done so, and prospered as a consequence.
	A second argument for not having a general election is the one put forward, to some extent, by hon. Member for Cannock Chasethat this Parliament has got us into a mess, and therefore this Parliament, and this Government, needs to clear it up. That is like the polluter pays principle, but the trouble is that it is the taxpayer who pays and the polluter who stays, and that is what so many of our fellow countrymen find so difficult to accept. It would be easier to accept that argument if there were a clear, and very quick, timetable for some of the improvements that are being talked about, but every time I hear the Prime Minister I fail to hear the urgency that is necessary if we are to do this job quickly and clinically, enabling us to go to the country at an early date.

David Heath: The hon. Gentleman has not only made his point but undermined his own argument. If we think that everything in the garden is rosy, then there is no obstacle to the general election that some of us believe should be held, but that is not the case. We have done some very basic things that some of us called for a long time ago, but they are far insufficient in meeting what is needed. If he really thinks that that is enough to regain the trust of the electorate, I can only suggest that he has not been on the doorsteps in recent weeks with enough assiduity.
	The third argument against having a general election concerns the point that the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks made so amusingly about chaos theorythe Prime Minister's idea that we would somehow be plunged into irremediable chaos were we to have a general election. I do not buy that for one moment. However, let me share something that I seem to remember from a long time ago in the days when I was attempting to do physiological sciences. There is a sort of chaos that is often observed at a microscopic level among very small organisms within an aqueous medium: it is called Brownian motion, and that is what we have seen from the Government recently.
	So what has been the Government's response to this crisis of confidence in the House and in the Government? We have had yet another of the Prime Minister's regular relaunches. Sadly, he is getting into a situation similar to that of the former right hon. Member for Huntingdonhe has been relaunched almost as many times as the Padstow lifeboat. It never really does the job, because one can only relaunch one's boat so many times when it is leaking below the waterline, as is the case at the moment.
	We have had a re-engineered Cabinet. A Department that was created only a year ago has been subsumed by another onepurely, it would appear, for the greater glorification of the noble Lord Mandelson. I will not go through the whole of his nomenclature, as the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks did, but it occurs to me that this new Department will need very wide doors if his name is to be displayed appropriately.
	We have a new Cabinet. Is anybody excited by it? Does anyone feel it will supply the answers to the country's problems? As the right hon. Gentleman said, there will be seven people attending Cabinet who are not elected Members. I would have thought that that situation would be familiar to the 3rd Marquess of Salisbury rather than to a Government in the 21st century, yet that is what we now have. It suggests that there is a conspicuous lack of talent in this elected House if that is what the Prime Minister has to rely on. Or perhaps those who will serve in his Cabinet do not have the talent, and those who have the talent will not serve in his Cabinet. Either way, it does not suggest a Prime Minister with the confidence of either his colleagues or the country.
	Today, we heard a cobbled-together programme of constitutional change. It picked up bits and pieces of what other people have suggested over the years, but was all developed in the secretive and obscure way that is always the modus operandi of this Prime Minister. It tells us everything we need to know about him that his idea of consensus is to have this Committee of Public Safety, or whatever it is called, with no Opposition parties invited to contribute. Do not invite anyone who might disagreethat is the way of building consensus, is it not? It establishes immediate consensus.
	Today's statement was issued to the leaders of the other parties a quarter of an hour before Prime Minister's questions. The Prime Minister then challenged them to establish a consensus by agreeing with what he and his cronies had put together as a proposal for a constitutional change. Then he had the gall to say that that was the new politics, the change, the way we were now going to do things to establish democratic renewal based on the agreement of all parties and people across the country.
	The Prime Minister has said repeatedly that he is the man to cure Parliament of its ills. However, he is the man who, when the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (David Maclean) was trying to exempt the House from freedom of information legislation, could not be bothered to turn up to and vote. Members can look it up in  Hansard from 20 April 2007. That was the sort of leadership that the Prime Minister showed. He allowed Government Whips to do their job and help the Bill to go through, and he allowed them to vote, but he absented himself. So did the Secretary of State for Wales.
	The Prime Minister is the man who, on 3 July last year, when there was a perfectly proper proposal from the House of Commons Commission to bring in independent auditing of Members' allowances, was again not here. He was not present to support that proposal, and he allowed it to be amended out of the Commission's proposals, so this House managed to escape proper independent auditing of allowances for yet another year. He now says that he is the man to reform the system in this House. He is not the man, because he is not a leader. He is in fact an obstacle to reform, and has been for 12 years now.

Anne McGuire: I will come to the hon. Gentleman in just a second, so he might want to keep his powder dry for the moment.
	I am sorry that the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) is not in the Chamber now. He highlighted opinion polls and what they tell us. However, he failed to recognise that yesterday's ComRes poll for the Daily Politics showed that the majority of Scots were opposed to a general election and opposed to the Prime Minister resigning. They rejected the alternativethe Leader of the Oppositionas a Prime Minister. According to the poll, in answer to the question, Should Gordon Brown should resign immediately?, 68 per cent. of Scots said no. In answer to the question, Should there should a general election now?, 55 per cent. said no. In answer to the question, Do you agree with this statement: 'The Leader of the Opposition has what it takes to be a good Prime Minister'?, 55 per cent. said no. If we are going to start trading opinion polls, let us put them all on the table, not just the selected few that the hon. Gentleman put before us today.
	The SNP is indulging in what it does best, which is playground politics, when the people of Scotland and the United Kingdom are looking to the Government to support them through the challenges that they face in coping with the recession. People are looking to a Government who will continue to invest in our public services through these difficult times. They are also looking at this Parliament to ensure that we deal with a discredited expenses regime that has brought us all shame and embarrassment.

Anne McGuire: To talk about whether we would have wanted an independent Scotland is such a hoary old chestnut. As the hon. Gentleman well knows, we do not accept that an independent Scotland is the way forward in the 21st century. We believe that we are stronger together than we are apart [Interruption.] I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman has a fundamental difference of opinion with us on that, and I have no objection to his taking an opposite view, but to be frank, the question he asked is spurious, to use that word again.
	Let me deal with the hon. Member for Glasgow, East (John Mason), who I heard saying on the radio the other night that he would bring down any UK Government because he was a nationalistor words to that effect.  [Interruption.] He may well rub his hands with glee, but his constituency is one I grew up init was then known as Glasgow, Provanand my father represented was a regional councillor in the old Strathclyde region. The hon. Gentleman may well think it fun to bring down a UK Government, so let me tell him that when he and his erstwhile colleagues in those days rushed to bring down a Labour Government, they ushered in some of the darkest days for the communities he now represents. Those communities were almost destroyed by unemployment and deprivation during those years, when a Conservative Government were prepared to stand back and let things take their course. The former constituency of Glasgow, Provan had an unemployment rate of about 35 per cent.

Richard Shepherd: I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) for tabling the motion. Very rarely do we debate a subject as broad as the dissolution of the House. If I may, however, I will not follow the nationalists' line of argument, and I regret that I am also unable to follow that of the Secretary of State for Wales. I can only reflect that he may have been distracted by the thought that he was securing his position as a new Cabinet Minister and therefore could not really give his attention to the issue.
	This is not, in truth, about the popularity or otherwise of a Government; Governments are unpopular from time to time. Indeed, it is not just about the unpopularity of a Prime Minister. Goodnessif we got rid of Prime Ministers just because they were unpopular, we would never have a public policy in this country. This is about more. It is about the dissolution of Parliament, and that means our going to face the people as well.
	I do not want either to follow the line that was so adequatelyso heroicallyaddressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague). It is the classic and great spirit of Parliament to mock, to identify and to twist the truths into the nerves of those who face us across the Floor of the House. My right hon. Friend produced a compelling argument and gave a profoundly good performance as a parliamentarian.
	What I want to examine is the argument that my right hon. Friend could not address, because at that stage it had not been presented. I refer, of course, to the argument of the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright). If I understand it correctly, the hon. Gentleman's argument is that this awful time when the House is at its greatest discountwhen it is being judged by the public, possibly not even reasonably, because of the extent of their present furyis essentially not a time for a general election, because the electorate may, in their rage and anger, sweep away that which may be good or right about this House. This is a profoundly important argument.
	This House as a collective, and including the Government, has in its time been profoundly unpopular. We only have to think of the long march, of which the Labour party was an integral part, towards reaching democratic and accountable government. In 1832, this House and the other place feared revolution. They wanted to hold to their established ways of doing things. The men of Birmingham and Wolverhampton marched through Walsall, seeking to acquire some very limited form of representation, and there were those who harrumphed that this country hung on the edge of revolution and that that which was good would be swept away. In the event, the moderation and reasonableness of the people of Britainin this instance, the people of Englandprevailed, and that tiny step was taken.
	In 1865, an extraordinary thing happened. In 1860, a Prime Minister had set his face against a further extension that would enfranchise a larger part of the nation. Gladstone could not achieve such a thing when he was Prime Minister, but Disraeli, with the co-operation of Gladstone and the voice and arguments of Bright across this land, achieved something that shaped and formed the character of the Chamber in which we sit today. Let us not doubt it: reaction would have seen that off.
	As to revolutionary responses that sweep things away, many people out there, in their understandable rage, want to sweep us away and thereby sweep away continuity. I must address the remarks of the hon. Member for Cannock Chase by saying that I do not fear that. Half of the Members of this House will probably remain, and half will leave. In that turn of events there will be a natural renewal of the House, whenever an election comes. A previous argument then returns: do we not think that the electorate are making an irrational judgment? Who are we to claim that? Is doing so not a display of self-serving self-satisfaction? Do the people not have the right to do this if they judge that the Government should change? It is pointed out that we have constitutional practice, and a Government are, by statute, in place for five years. The current Government have been in office for four years, and the tradition in this country is that, by and large, a modern Government seek a four-year term. It is said that we can extend that because there are important and necessary things to be done to prepare the new Parliament for, perhaps, a better prospect.
	That is where the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks comes into play. What are these important things? Of course, the economy is the issue that grinds away in my constituency, along with contempt for the way in which we as individuals have handled our expenses. It is the economy, in truth; that is where we should justify ourselves.
	We on the Back Benches are not the Government. We hold the Government to account, and that function does not belong solely and exclusively to those on these Benches. This House has lost its lustre because people who stood as Labour candidates, were elected as Labour Members and who believe in Labour policies did not think it necessary to insist that the Government's policies should be argued and reasoned, and that they could go forth and convince the people that the Government's policies were worthy, because the Government won the argument.
	Unfortunately, the evacuation from the Chamber of the Secretary of State for Wales meant that he did not answer the questions put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks about the conduct of business. As the hon. Member for Cannock Chase said, we now have an opportunity for this House to revive itself. I believe that profoundly, but with this personnelwith these Membersit cannot have the confidence or authority to sustain a Government. That is what the House does, collectively, but this Government have no purpose now.
	The reform of expenses has now been taken out of the hands of this House, effectively, because the people have thrown their derision and scorn at it. Freedom of information was mentioned, and one need only look at the list of those who voted, including Ministers, because they were available on a Friday. Whips were imposed by both partiesI do not pretend otherwiseto defy the very principle of open government and our accountability for our use of public money.
	We comforted ourselves with the thought that the system was out of the sight of others and that our integrity was reinforced by the fact that it was authorised. That has been swept aside, and we all recognise that. A process is under way. We look forward to Sir Christopher's review. We will bear it heavily, perhaps, but it is right that the people should have the response that they wanted and that this is no longer in our hands.
	This issue should not be about the Prime Minister outbidding the Leader of the Opposition, or about star chambers. The Prime Minister used the term, but a Star Chamber put fear into this country for 100 years. The king appointed judges to sit in a little courtroom not far from here. He made charges, and strangely enough, his chosen judges found people guilty and he would then say that the verdict was right. That is what we have slipped into in our crisis. It denigrates our tradition of liberty and it is contrary to our sense of process and fair trial. That is what we have reduced ourselves toto accepting that, when we can do better.
	It will not be for us to do better. Our time has passed. This House is dead on its feet and it needs the renewal of authority that, in our tradition and purpose, justifies its being a cradle of democracy and the little Chamber that was once an example to the world. That is the restoration that we can seek through the people. This House has no time left. Whatever initiative is announced or programme proposed, there will be a summer recess and a Queen's Speech, but we all know that the parties will be working on their manifestos. That is what it is about. Perhaps some still hope that something will turn up, but the public mind knows that we are a busted flush. In truth, we know that too: there should be an election.

Russell Brown: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd). He speaks with great sincerity, but he and I are coming from opposite sides of the argument. I come from a background where, if something has gone wrong, the duty lies with the individual or individuals who have got it wrong to start to put things right and to mend [ Interruption. ] He is saying from a sedentary position that we have, and, yes, I think we have put interim measures in place to deal with the whole allowances fiasco. An independent reviewer will come to us with their views. I sincerely hope that the whole House would get 100 per cent. behind that and would accept what is being said.

Russell Brown: There was undoubtedly significant wheeling and dealinggrown-up politics, but fundamentally different to delivering on pledges and commitments to the people.
	The Scottish Administration have failed on police numbers, prison overcrowding and support for first-time buyers. I am only disappointed that I could not get hold of the Scottish National party's election leaflet so that I could bring it to the debate and say, Could do significantly better.

Elfyn Llwyd: The hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway made his points in a rather theatrical manner. The question that he could not answer was why the Scottish Government did so fantastically well last week if they are letting the Scots people down. In every opinion poll, consistently, their support goes up and through the roof. There we have it. We heard a speech that did not take us very far.
	We have had a good debate. It was worth having. The motion is not a no confidence motion; it is about the credibility of Parliament. Many of us in many parties believe, as I am sure in their heart of hearts do many Labour Members, that we have a busted flush. If we went to the country, there would be a renewal. All the procedures are in place. We are waiting for Kelly. Other procedures have been put in place pro tem. There is nothing to prevent us from having an election as those other countries have recently had.
	I urge hon. Members to think carefully about how they vote this evening. I urge Members on the Government Benches to join those of us who are democratically concerned about the future of this place, and to join us in the Lobby later.

Chris Bryant: I apologise to the House for the fact that it is me replying to the debate, but I had been asked to do so before I was moved to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, so this is my sort of final appearance as the Deputy Leader of the House.
	We had some interesting speeches this afternoon, and some that were fundamentally misleading. It is a shame that the [ Interruption. ] Oh, no, the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) has been able to get back into the Chamber now. I disagreed with almost every word that he said, as I am sure he would expect. The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) tried to patronise the Secretary of State for Wales, which is the hon. Gentleman's favourite tactic when he is rattled, but I thought that my right hon. Friend made a very good argument, and I hope to return to it.
	We then had important contributions from my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mrs. McGuire), who made some important points that needed to be heard about the Scottish nationalists' record. We also heard from the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), whom I like to think of as an hon. Friend these days. When he was lying on top of me the other dayor I was lying on top of him, I cannot rememberon the rugby pitch at Twickenham, he impressed upon me the need for radical reform of Parliament, and, as he knows, I have always agreed with him on those matters.
	We heard from the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), and he always speaks from the heart, with minimal notes and with great conviction. I do not happen to agree with the conclusions that he came to, and, as he knows, I often disagree with the conclusions that he comes to; none the less, I share with him the respect for this House and the importance of our being able to reinforce its value into the future and to restore the reputation in which it is held. He referred to several changes to the constitution which were brought about in the 19th century. One of the most important changes, as far as the Rhondda was concerned, was when the franchise was extended to miners, and, from that day forward, they have had Labour representation.
	We need to make further reforms, and the most important question that we need to consider when we consider whether to dissolve Parliament is whether there is anything that weweneed to do urgently. I believe that there are two very important things that we need to do urgently.
	I realise, however, that I have forgotten the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) and his highly illuminating speech. He did, however, mislead usinadvertently, I am sureon one fact. He said that he thought that, one day, the Business Secretary, my Lord[Hon. Members: Aah!] Well, the right hon. Gentleman said that the Business Secretary was going to be an archbishop, and, from my former career, I am used to calling archbishops, my Lord. I am sure, however, that he would not suffice with an archbishopric; after all, archbishops can be fallible.
	Most importantly, there are significant things that we need to do as a Government. I believe, as all Members have said today, that we need to take very seriously the message that the electorate sent us last weeka message not only to my political party, but to all political parties represented in this Chamber. There was a significant fall in turnout in many areas and there was a vote for the far right in many areas. In my constituency, the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats came in after the British National party. There are very important issues that we need to bear in mind; there are important reforms that we need to make to the way in which we do politics; and, as the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome said, we need to make them urgentlyvery urgently. First, we need to have an independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, because it is important that we do not set our own pay and rations. Our pay, allowances and pensions should be set, monitored, audited and administered completely independently of this House. That they have not been is one of the major things that has brought this place into disrepute.
	Nobody should be able to enrich themselves by virtue of being a Member of this House or by virtue of the allowances that they are able to claim. Nobody should be prevented, equally, from being a Member of this House because they do not have an independent fortune. Anybody should be able to represent a constituency in this country, regardless of their background. I note that the hon. Gentleman wants a swift timetableand there will be one, to bring those reforms forward. We need to see them as swiftly as possible, and that means that it would be ludicrous and inappropriate for us to have a general election now. In addition, we need to make sure that the reassessmentand, if necessary, repaymentof all hon. Members' claims back to 2004 can be done swiftly. That would surely have to be done before any general election.
	We need to look seriously at the issues raised by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister this afternoon about the reform of the House of Commons and its Committees. We all recognise the value of the Select Committee system, which has been around in a changing form for the past 25 or 30 years. However, we need to go a step further in making sure that those Committees have real power and an ability to transform the politics of this country. The changes to which my right hon. Friend referred this afternoon would help.
	Likewise, we need to consider timetabling and how we conduct our business. We need to look at all such matters urgently if we are to make sure that the House, which has been respected around the country through the centuries, returns to that key position.

Chris Bryant: No, I will not give way, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind, because I have very little time.
	I want to address some of the issues that have been raised by the nationalists. They pretend in political life, and yet we all know the truth that lies behind it. What is the truth in this case? They do not expect to form a Government if there is a general election. They are not intending to put up candidates across every seat in England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. They have no intention of forming a Government of their ownthey want to get rid of this Government to put in that lot, the Conservatives, and they should be honest to the House about it.  [ Interruption. ] Yes, absolutelythe right hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) and his friends should look carefully at where they are getting the cheers from.
	We know that that is the truth, because the nationalists have a record on this. Just look at 1979they did exactly the same then. Look at 1993, when they propped up a discredited Government. The truth is that they are so obsessed with independence that that is the only thing they will ever see. Of course, the leader of their partythe leader in Scotlandcould perfectly well have been in Scotland today voting on reform of the rape law; instead, he has decided to sit in here and smirk like a Cheshire cat so that he gets on television behind the leader of Plaid Cymru. Where were they when it came to minimum wage? None of them even bothered to turn up, and yet they try to pretend that they believe in things [ Interruption. ]

Planning and Development (Somerset)

Jamie Reed: I welcome the Minister to her new position on the Front Bench. As someone who was elected alongside her in 2005, I know she is one of the brightest and best on the Labour Benches. I trust and believe she will do a superb job in the role she has been given.
	I pay tribute to this Government's record in improving education across the board in my constituency and in west Cumbria as a whole. The fact that attainment levels at primary and secondary schools have improved significantly since 1997 is beyond any significant doubt. In the town of Egremont in my constituency, the Government have responded to my calls for individual and specific initiatives by investing almost 30 million in the new West Lakes academy school, which is soon to begin construction; by agreeing to allocate a further 80 million of capital expenditure on secondary schools in the area; and through other routes, such as funding for the first time in the history of west Cumbria not only the university of Cumbria, but the university of Central Lancashire and the university of Manchester's Dalton facilityboth at the Westlake science park. In addition, Sure Start centres in my constituency have been an unqualified success.
	It is, however, a matter of profound regret to me and all those who care about the life chances of future generations of west Cumbrian children that the Opposition have promised to abolish Sure Start centres and slash education spending by billions should they ever form a Government. Let me be absolutely clear that the public funds currently being put into education in west Cumbria and my constituency in particular are without any precedent. Labour Governments make these investments because we understand the true power of education. It is through education that society is strengthened, that individuals prosper and that most of the ills facing us as a society can be cured.
	Undoubtedly, it is through the distribution of knowledge and learning that we really redistribute wealth, and that we really redistribute power and opportunity, and it is through education that we will eradicate poverty in this country. I mean not just physical or economic poverty, but the toxic and uniquely contagious poverty of ambition and aspiration that still blights so many of our communities. That is why nurture groups are so incredibly important.
	As someone who has entered public life, like the Minister, with the determination to achieve those ends, I have seen just how important nurture groups are, where they exist, in helping to achieve those policy objectives. Nurture groups provide effective support for vulnerable children and young people who experience barriers to their learning for a variety of social, emotional and academic reasons. Nurture groups help children to succeed: they improve attendance, engage parents in their child's education and build confidence and self-esteem. None of us can doubt that for our children to succeed, they must first know what success is.
	Nurture groups have been in existence for 40 years, with a proven track record of success, and can also be found in countries such as New Zealand and Canada. There are more than 1,000 nurture groups in the UK, funded variously by local authorities, schools and charitable donations. As far as I am aware, no nurture groups are funded directly by central Government or by additional grants to local education authoritiesa situation that in my view should change as soon as possible, irrespective of the straitened economic times in which we find ourselves.
	Nurture groups cover a variety of children from different social and economic backgrounds and with different educational attainment levels and abilities. There is no typical child for whom a nurture group is suitable. Rather, it is progressive teachers in supported and supportive professional environments who identify the need for nurture groups in their schools and who in turn identify those children who would benefit most from a period of nurture.
	As matters stand, the existence of nurture groups in schools in my constituency and across the country is testimony to the professional excellence demonstrated by so many of our teacherspeople such as Pamela Telford and Ann Banks at Monkwray primary school, and Pauline Lambert and Lynne McQuire at Millom infants. Kells infants and Valley primary, too, have seen the need for these groups, and across west Cumbria, Wendy Roden, Leesa Taylor, John Kirk and others have undertaken unique work. These are people who believe passionately in their own ability and in the power of education to change the lives of individuals and to improve their communities and societyand they do not and will not wait for other agencies or other people to identify problems and produce solutions. Nor should they. In short, as happens with so many successes, they have chosen not to wait for politicians to get around to solving the problems that they see daily, but to take the necessary action themselves. In my view, that initiative should be rewarded with fixed, stable funding, and the best practice with which those people are associated should be shared nationally.
	Like the Minister, I entered politics to improve the lives of my constituents, to open the doors of opportunity, and to prioritise my efforts in favour of those who need help the most. I have seen hundreds of examples of improved public services in my constituency in recent years. I have seen new dialysis units, new emergency medicine centres, new classrooms and more, and I care passionately about them all. I have also recently visited a number of nurture groups in my constituency, and I can say without exaggeration that I have never been as moved or convinced by the need for any public service.
	I have seen the lives of children being changed in front of my face. I have seen the life chances of some children unfold and expand as I have been in the classroom, and I have never seen anything like it in any school environment. At one school in my constituency, I met a little girl who used the nurture group dressing-up box to dress as a princess. The teacher gave her and other classmates a digital camera. They would take photographs, print them and display them in the classroom. The teacher told me that only weeks earlier, the little girl in question kept asking the teacher and classmates who the pretty girl in the photograph was. She could not recognise herself. She had no sense of selfno awareness of herselfand it took weeks to convince her that the girl in the photograph actually was her. As soon as that knowledge took hold, her life was changed.
	I have never seen pride like the pride that I saw in that little girl's face when she showed me the photographs of herself. I can only compare it to watching a butterfly emerge from a chrysalis. The girl did not have an easy family background. Her parents themselves had not enjoyed what could be termed a rewarding experience in education. However, the change in their daughter changed the family. I have seen children transformed by specialist care, not just emotionally but educationally.
	At every school that I have visited where these groups exist, not just the children but their parents receive the nurture that they need, and the life-changing support that, for some reason, they do not receive anywhere else. The same can be said of male pupils. I have seen primary and junior school boys win competition prizes, only to find that they are incapablephysically incapableof accepting those prizes, along with the plaudits and congratulations that they deserve. They refuse to make eye contact.
	I am delighted to see that my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Tony Cunningham) is present. He shares a constituency boundary with me, and he will be aware of what is happening in our part of the world.
	What I have described does not happen only occasionally. It happens regularly, but it does not have to be this way. It is just as important to recognise that such behaviour can develop into a culture if it is left unattended in significant numbers of children. Tragically, a generational cycle can develop. There is enough qualitative evidence to demonstrate such an issue in communities throughout the country, particularly those that have been scarred by the brutal economic transitions of the 1980s.
	As children in nurture groups learn academically and socially, they develop confidence, become responsive to others, and take pride in behaving well and in achievement. Usually after less than three school terms, more than 80 per cent. are ready to return full time to the mainstream class with which they will have kept in daily contact. When that is not possible, children are still helped by their time in nurture groups. The nature of their difficulties is better understood by their teachers, and the special help that they need can be identified and sought. This is a move that is usually welcomed by parents who have seen their children's particular educational needs become apparent.
	The House should not just take my word for it, however. In April this year, Sir Alan Steer recognised the importance of nurture groups in his report Learning Behaviour: Lessons learned. A review of behaviour standards and practices in our schools. His report contained the following recommendation:
	Head teachers report that nurture groups can be important in supporting pupils who display poor behaviour. Building on previous research DCSF should undertake an assessment of the impact of nurture groups in schools situated in areas of high deprivation. This might be via an Ofsted survey of the effectiveness of nurture groups and other additional provision in schools that supports good behaviour, an independent evaluation, or a pilot programme which could be evaluated by Ofsted.
	I agree with Sir Alan. Moreover, I believe that the evidence in support of these groups is overwhelming.
	Pulling policy levers in Whitehall will not by itself deliver the same kind of results that I have seen nurture groups achieve on the ground in our communities, on our streets, and in hearts and minds where it matters most. Having achieved so much, our Government should harness these energies and enable them to flourish further with the predictable funding they now need. Ultimately, if we do not do thisif this Government and our party do not do thisno one else will. I will therefore now write to the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State to ask them to include a commitment to nurture groups in the next Labour party manifesto.
	More importantly, I shall now make some specific requests of the Minister and her Department. Will her Department now make dedicated financial provision for the funding of nurture groups wherever they are required? Will her Department now undertake a national study or a series of pilot studies where nurture groups exist in areas of social deprivation? Will representatives of her Department meet with the Nurture Group Network to discuss its work and how to best take this forward? Finally, will the Minister please come and see for herself the remarkable results achieved by nurture groups in my constituency? Raised attainment levels, record numbers of new schools, dramatically improved pay and conditions for teachers, an information and communications technology revolution, record numbers of people in education and university, and the magnificent work of our Sure Start centres: this is a record to be proud of, and that nobody else would be capable of. Let us finish the job, however; let us now give our nurture groups the support they deserve.

Diana Johnson: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Mr. Reed) on securing the debate, and I thank him for his very kind words at the start of his speech.
	I know from my hon. Friend's eloquent speech this evening that he shares my commitment to excellence in education and is dedicated to ensuring the very best provision for the children and young people of his constituency. The topic of this debate is of the utmost importance to this Government, because we have made a promise that we are going to make this the best country in the world for children to grow up in. That means not only offering young people the best education possible, but ensuring their welfare at every stage.
	As we outlined in Every Child Matters, we want children's lives to be happy, healthy and safe. That is why our Department is revolutionising the way that children are looked after in and out of school. This is crucial not only to a child's broader development, but to their educational attainment. If a child feels happy, secure and safe, they are more likely to come to school ready to learn. Schools now work more closely with health services, police and the voluntary sector than ever before to make sure that every aspect of children's well-being is supported. Importantly, Every Child Matters gave the opportunity for children and parents to have their thoughts and concerns heard by the Government, so we could construct the safest and most effective ways to meet the needs of every child and every parent. Putting the voice of the child and young person at the heart of the debate so it informs everything we do is absolutely essential if services are truly to meet their needs.
	The children's plan has taken that even further, setting out a vision for greater partnerships between schools and children services. We now have more than 3,000 Sure Start centres, offering practical advice and support for both families and children. More schools than ever before are offering extended services to meet the wider needs of children, including breakfast clubs, study support groups and easier access to specialist services for those who need extra support. We want to meet the needs of every child, to help them achieve their best. The Labour Government have a proud record on this, which stands up to independent scrutiny and will certainly be under threat if there is a change of Government.
	We know that what happens to a child in the first few years of life has a huge effect on their future development and life chances, so making sure that every child's needs are met as soon as they start primary school is of utmost importance. When children are experiencing difficulties, early intervention is vital. As my hon. Friend set out so effectively, nurture groups support children who are showing signs of behavioural, emotional and social difficulties. They are a place where pupils can spend all or most of the day, normally over a period of no longer than a year. They can create a predictable and secure environment for children to engage with their learning and to overcome their behavioural problems. As they begin to improve, they will gradually spend more and more time in mainstream classes until they can be fully integrated again into a typical classroom.
	Nurture groups are not new, and indeed the Department has recognised their valuable contribution to the well-being of pupils for some time. The 1997 Green Paper, Excellence for All, set out a programme for improving special educational needs provision. In particular, it said that nurture groups offer a promising approach to the education of children with learning difficulties. Since then, the groups have flourished all over the country, and we have heard this evening about those in my hon. Friend's constituency.
	As my hon. Friend mentioned, nurture groups were an essential part of Sir Alan Steer's final report on behaviour, published in April this year, in which he recognised the importance of early intervention in raising behaviour standards in schools. He recommended that we undertake an assessment of the impact of nurture groups in areas of high deprivation. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made a commitment to act on all the recommendations in Sir Alan's report, and we intend to publish our detailed implementation plan later this summer. I hope that that answers the particular question that my hon. Friend posed at the end of his speech.
	There are, of course, other effective ways that behavioural and emotional problems can be addressed across the whole school, so that all children can understand the importance of managing their behaviour. That is because behavioural problems can have a knock-on effect on all students and staff, not just the individuals concerned. Students need to learn to be able to value and respect their teachers and one another so that good manners can go beyond the classroom, out into the corridor and into the playground.
	Our social and emotional aspects of learning programmeor SEALdevelops the social and emotional skills of all pupils through a whole-school approach, across the curriculum. It is designed to develop pupils' sense of self-awareness and the ability to manage their feelings in a constructive and positive way. By developing empathy, social awareness, motivation and social skills, it enables them to get along better with others and to become more responsible citizens. SEAL helps schools to create a safe and emotionally healthy school environment where pupils can learn effectively. Through well-crafted assemblies, informed lesson plans and colourful source material, primary schoolchildren are able to identify with their emotions and understand that the way in which they express their feelings can affect their fellow pupils. Its effects can be felt in the corridors as well as the classroom.
	If we get children off on the right foot at the very start of their school careers, their emotional well-being can develop in parallel with their educational achievements. These skills are an important component of personal, social and health education, helping pupils to become responsible citizens. Such an approach has worked well for many schools, and about 80 per cent. of primary schools now use the SEAL programme. My Department is committed to ensuring that such skills are addressed in every school, and we provide 10 million a year to local authorities to fund training in SEAL for school staff. We have also decided to make personal, social, health and economic educationPSHEa statutory subject to be taught to all children, including primary schoolchildren.
	Children will one day leave school and start work in the wider world, where social skills are the glue that holds down a good job, rewarding friendships, a roof over their head and a steady source of income. Teaching PSHE in the classroom allows pupils to see the benefits of applying these skills to their current lives, and puts them on the right track for life. I hope that that goes some way to persuading my hon. Friend that we are not complacent when it comes to effective ways to improve pupils' behaviour and social skills.
	My hon. Friend asked specifically about direct funding. As I have explained, money is already provided for the SEAL programme, but there is no specific central funding for nurture groups. By law, local authorities must of course provide a fair and equal education to all children in their local area, regardless of their social and economic background, but it is for each local authority to decide how best to meet that duty. Local authorities receive money from the Government through the dedicated schools grant for school funding, which takes into account issues such as social deprivation. We have committed to supply 28.9 billion of funding this academic year to local authorities through the grant, and Cumbria's share of the funding was 258.7 million.
	I know that Cumbria local authority have provided pump-priming funding and infrastructure support to schools looking to develop nurture groups, as well as professional development and support for school staff. As we have heard tonight, the groups are having a positive effect on the behaviour of pupils. There is no reason why other local authorities that want to support nurture groups cannot follow the good example of Cumbria.
	We encourage local authorities to discuss their ideas with schools, governors and parents to decide what is best for the schools in their local area. That is what our Department means when we talk about the 21st-century school: a community coming together to work out the best way to reach the needs of their local pupils.
	It is for each local authority to determine what provision best meets the needs of the children in their local area, together with parents, teachers and pupils. Nurture groups have a real role to play in getting children back into the classroom, back into learning and back on track, but they are not the only answer and local authorities need the flexibility to make decisions about where they direct their funding to the benefit of all children in their area.
	It is not just the responsibility of the local authority to ensure that children's well-being and wider development are supported, that they have the right support around them from education and children's services alike, and that they have the right sort of support. That is everybody's responsibilityit is the responsibility of central Government, local government, children's services professionals, teachers, heads, parents and even pupils. By working together in partnership to make the most of every resource our communities have to offer local children and parents, we will realise the vision of a world-class education system, first-class children's services and a generation of adults who are skilled workers, responsible citizens and well-rounded individuals.
	Finally, I would be delighted to meet the Nurture Group Network. I would also very much like to visit my hon. Friend's constituency and to see nurture groups in operation.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 House adjourned.